Ahtna, Inc. v. State, Dep’t of Transportation & Public Facilities

In Ahtna, Inc. v. State, Dep’t of Transportation & Public Facilities,[1] the supreme court held that, under the Federal-Aid Highway Act (“FAHA”), a right-of-way grant does not necessarily expire due to nonuse.[2] In 1961, the U.S. Government a right-of-way grant to the State for a road building material site without an expiration date.[3] Ten years later, the U.S. Government conveyed both the surface and subsurface estates of the same material site to Ahtna.[4] However, because this conveyance was subject to the State’s right-of-way grant, the State continued to remove material from the site until 1988.[5] When it resumed removal operations in 2008, Ahtna insisted the State stop and give compensation for what had recently been removed.[6] On appeal, Ahtna argued the right-of-way had expired or had been abandoned.[7] The supreme court affirmed the lower court’s decision, reasoning that FAHA authorized the State to determine the grant’s termination procedure.[8] Consequently, the State’s consent was necessary to terminate the right-of-way since the grant explicitly had no expiration date.[9]Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that a right-of-way grant does not necessarily expire due to nonuse.[10]

Ahtna, Inc. v. State, Dep’t of Transportation & Public Facilities

In Ahtna, Inc. v. State, Dep’t of Transportation & Public Facilities,[1] the supreme court held that, under the Federal-Aid Highway Act (“FAHA”), a right-of-way grant does not necessarily expire due to nonuse.[2] In 1961, the U.S. Government a right-of-way grant to the State for a road building material site without an expiration date.[3] Ten years later, the U.S. Government conveyed both the surface and subsurface estates of the same material site to Ahtna.[4] However, because this conveyance was subject to the State’s right-of-way grant, the State continued to remove material from the site until 1988.[5] When it resumed removal operations in 2008, Ahtna insisted the State stop and give compensation for what had recently been removed.[6] On appeal, Ahtna argued the right-of-way had expired or had been abandoned.[7] The supreme court affirmed the lower court’s decision, reasoning that FAHA authorized the State to determine the grant’s termination procedure.[8] Consequently, the State’s consent was necessary to terminate the right-of-way since the grant explicitly had no expiration date.[9]Affirming the lower court’s decision, the supreme court held that a right-of-way grant does not necessarily expire due to nonuse.[10]